3/31/10 No Foolin'! Second Wind Siting Council Meeting Tomorrow, April 1st, and "What's on the WSC Docket?"
The next Wind Siting Council meeting is Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm
-Developing guiding principles- Developer/owner responsibility
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin
CLICK HERE to download a copy of the agenda
CLICK HERE to find out who is on the siting council
|
WHAT'S ON THE WIND SITING COUNCIL (WSC) DOCKET TODAY? Visit the docket by CLICKING HERE. The docket number to enter is 1-AC-231 Public comment from Brown County resident regarding setbacks being measured from property lines, March 30, 2010 Proper siting of industrial wind turbines is perhaps the most crucial and overlooked aspect of the wind power debate. The turbines proposed for the Ledge Wind project and other state projects are industrial machines - they have no business being placed near people's homes, workplaces, schools, or farms. It is also imperative that setbacks are measured from property lines, not simply from the center of buildings. People live not just in their homes, but also on their lands. A person's plans for their property should not be impeded because an industrial turbine is placed too close to their lotline. To limit the health consequences and maximize safety, industrial wind turbines should be sited, at a BARE minimum, no closer than 1 km from property lines. Even better would be 2 km. To do any less is reprehensible and irresponsible, and risks the health and safety of Wisconsin residents. I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Public comment from Brown County resident regarding WSC record keeping and wildlife concerns: March 31, 2010 I attended the first meeting of the Wind Siting Council and was concerned that no secretary of the proceedings had bee[n] selected. In a recent call to Deborah Erwin, I was happy to hear that minutes of the meeting would be taken and put on the PSC website. Also, efforts are being made to broadcast the meetings through the internet again on the PSC website. Thank you Deborah for arranging full coverage of the panel's discussions. I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. |
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin wind power, wind farm setbacks, wind farm wildlife impacts, wind siting council, wisconsin psc wind
|
Comments Off
3/31/10 QUADRUPLE FEATURE: Kewaunee County Town of Carlton passes Large Wind Moratorium AND Where are they putting the turbines? And Hurry, hurry, hurry! Wind developers are waiting: PSC wants rules in three months, AND what's on the WSC docket today?
BREAKING NEWS:
Town of Carlton passes moratorium
Residents of Kewaunee County’s Town of Carlton filled the room at the zoning board hearing Monday night to show support for a moratorium on wind project development throughout the township. After the hearing the moratorium was passed by unanimous vote.
HOW MUCH OF WISCONSIN WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE WIND SITING COUNCIL GUIDELINES?
CLICK HERE to find out who is on the siting council
One of the issues the siting council will be addressing is shadow-flicker. Click on the image below to see what shadow flicker looks like in the dining room of a home in the Cedar Ridge project in Fond du lac County.
The family in this home didn't know anything about wind turbine shadow flicker until the day it started hitting their home. They do have the option of pulling down all the blinds and turning on the lights in order to eat together at the dining room table during the day. They also get shadow flicker on moonlit nights.
This is a map of counties where wind developers have expressed interest in siting projects. If we've missed any CLICK HERE to contact us and let us know so we can update the map.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
The next Wind Siting Council meeting is Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm
-Developing guiding principles- Developer/owner responsibility
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin
Rule deadline spooks wind farm neighbors
By Paul Snyder
March 29, 2010
Developers and landowners disagree over a state wind farm council’s three-month schedule to set turbine placement guidelines.
Developers with proposals on deck want the standards soon. Property owners do not want the state to rush a decision.
“These are life-changing decisions that will be made, and you can’t weigh health and safety issues against a three-month timeline,” said Lynda Barry-Kawula, a Spring Valley resident and co-founder of Better Plan Wisconsin, a volunteer group representing residents affected by wind farm development.
The state’s Wind Siting Council, appointed by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, met for the first time Monday in Madison, and PSC Chairman Eric Callisto said he expects the council’s work to be done by July.
VISIT THE DAILY REPORTER’S WIND FARM PROJECT PROFILE PAGE
The 15-member council was formed through a law passed last year to create common guidelines for wind farms generating less than 100 megawatts of electricity. Currently, the PSC reviews all projects that generate 100 megawatts or more, and local governments create ordinances for projects that generate less.
In addition to determining property setback distances for turbines, the council will review PSC-drafted rules relating to noise levels, shadow flickers on nearby properties and how best to restore sites after utilities decommission wind farms.
The council’s guidelines will govern the smaller wind farms, but also could apply to larger projects.
The lack of uniform standards is costing Wisconsin projects, said Dean Baumgartner, executive vice president of technical services and construction for St. Louis-based Wind Capital Group’s Madison office.
“If the cost of developing wind farms isn’t as competitive here as it is in other states, then developers will look elsewhere,” he said. “And Wisconsin will see that tax base go to other states.”
Baumgartner said Wind Capital Group is considering projects in Wisconsin, but the company will wait until uniform standards are in place. He said he’s encouraged by the PSC’s tight timeline.
The state needs to establish standards as quickly as possible, said Deb Irwin, the PSC’s renewable energy specialist.
“There are a lot of developers waiting,” she said.
The PSC will have a draft set of rules ready for council review in two weeks, at which point council members can raise issues or propose changes for a final version. The council will hold at least two public hearings on the rules — one in Monroe County and one in another county besides Dane County.
Irwin said if the council’s work is not done by July, it can continue to debate changes. But she said the PSC wants a final product this summer.
That worries Gerry Meyer, a Brownsville resident who lives near Chicago-based Invenergy LLC’s Forward Wind Energy Center.
“I don’t know if they can really reach consensus in that time,” he said. “There might be some strong votes, but I think it’s going to go one way, and that’s stacked against landowners.”
Ryan Schryver, a member of the council and grass-roots organizer for Madison-based Clean Wisconsin Inc., said the aggressive timeline is good and concerned landowners will get a chance to air their concerns.
“I think the PSC’s been pretty clear about taking the existing ordinances and the changes to the public, and I think that will continue,” he said. “We’re committed to getting the public involved.”
SECOND FEATURE: What's on the Wind Siting Council (WSC) docket today?
CLICK HERE to find out who is on the siting council
Public Comment from Town of Forest, St. Croix County, Wisconsin regarding Emerging Energies plan to site wind project there
I LIVE IN THE TOWN OF FOREST IN ST CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN WHICH IS A PROPOSED SITE FOR A 100 MW WIND ENERGY PROJECT CONSISTING OF (40) 2.5 MW TURBINES MOUNTED ON 300 FT TOWERS.
THE DEVELOPER IS EMERGING ENERGIES INC BASED HERE IN WISCONSIN.
THERE WAS A TOWN BOARD MEETING IN FOREST ON MARCH 11, 2010 AT 7 PM WHICH HAD TWO OF THEIR REPRESENTATVES GIVING A POWER POINT PRESENTATION ON THE FINDINGS OF THE TWO YEAR WIND STUDY FOR THE AREA.
THE ATTENDEES AT THE MEETING WERE MAINLY LAND OWNERS THAT HAD EXPRESSED INTEREST IN HAVING TURBINES PLACED ON THEIR PROPERTY FOR PROFIT.
AS FAR AS I COULD TELL, I WAS THE ONLY RESIDENT THERE THAT DID NOT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT.
I ASKED A FEW QUESTIONS ON SITE REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS SET BACKS FROM PRIVATE RESIDENCES FOR TURBINES, OVERHEAD OR UNDERGROUND FEEDER CABLES AND TRANSMISSION LINES AND THE PLACEMENT OF A SUBSTATION.
I COULD TELL THAT MY QUESTIONS EVOKED SURPRISE FROM THE EMERGING ENERGIES PRESENTOR.
MY BACKGROUND IS IN THE ELECTRICAL UTILITY AND CONTRACTOR MARKETS AND I DO SELL PRODUCTS INTO WIND ENERGY PROJECTS.
I HAVE BEEN TO OVER A DOZEN WIND PROJECTS SITES IN TEXAS, WYOMING, OREGON AND OKLAHOMA. MOST OF THESE PROJECTS IN THOSE STATES ARE BEING DEVELOPED IN REMOTE AND VERY WIDE OPEN AREAS. UNLIKE WISCONSIN, WHERE THE AVERAGE FARM IS 40 TO 400 ACRES, RANCHES OUT IN THESE PLACES ARE MEASURED IN 640 ACRE SECTIONS AND ARE COMPRISED OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES.
THE PLACEMENT OF TURBINES USUALLY HAS NO EFFECT ON PRIVATE RESIDENCES BECAUSE OF THIER ISOLATED LOCATIONS.
THE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE TOWN OF FOREST WILL BE LOCATED IN AN AREA THAT HAS MUCH HIGHER POPULATION DENSITY AND MANY HOMES WILL BE AFFECTED.
I WAS NOT GIVEN A CLEAR ANSWER ON MY SETBACK QUESTION, I WAS TOLD THEY COULD PLACE A TOWER 1.1 TIMES IT'S HEIGHT FROM MY PROPERTY LINE OR 11OO FT FROM MY HOME....MAYBE 1200 FT. THIS IS WAY TOO CLOSE.
WE SHOULD NOT LEAVE HOMEOWNERS AT THE MERCY OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPERS. THE NOISE AND LOW FREQUENCY SOUNDS EMMITTED 24 HRS A DAY ARE HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH OVER EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME.
THE FLICKERING EFFECT FROM THE SUN CAN BE VERY ANNOYING. THE PEOPLE IN THE TOWN OF FOREST HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF LIVING TOO CLOSE TO THESE 300 FOOT TURBINES AND THEY NEED TO BE INFORMED.
A FEW OF US WILL BE STARTING A CITIZENS ACTION GROUP TO EDUCATE LOCAL RESIDENTS ON THESE ISSUES, AND TO STOP THE PROJECT IF THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF PEOPLE LIVING AND WORKING IN AREA.
I AM NOT OPPOSED TO WIND ENERGY, BUT THERE MUST BE REGULATIONS TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT. I ASK THAT YOUR COMMITTEE ESTABLISH A 4000 - 5000 FOOT SET BACK REGUATION FOR THESE TURBINES AWAY FROM PRIVATE RESIDENCESI affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
JEFF ERICSON
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Bill Rakocy, partner and founding member of Emerging Energies is on the Wind Siting Council which will be setting rules for siting wind turbines in our state and like many others on the council, he has a direct financial interest in establishing short setbacks.
Emerging Energies is bringing the largest turbines ever sited in Wisconsin to the Brown County Town of Glenmore. They are fifty stories tall (500 feet) and made by German Company, Nordex
More from the docket:
Wind projects affect the lives of home owners for 25 - 35 years.
Careful study needs to be done to insure there are no adverse health and safety affects from inadequate siting guidlines.
Since not everyone can attend 2 or 3 hearings per week, this study should not try to be rushed through in 3 months time.
I would also like to see more hearing held near the affected communities. Everyone deserves the opportunity to be heard.
Thank You.I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Curt Hilgenberg, Town of Holland
Visit the docket by CLICKING HERE. The docket number to enter is 1-AC-231
ADDED MARCH 29, 2010
Prepared for Wind Siting Council for Informational Purposes March 29, 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES PROCESS
DRAFT RULE OUTLINE:
PSC Chapter 128 Draft Compiled Rule Outline Prepared for Wind Siting Council
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FIRST STEP - STATEMENT OF SCOPE
• Commission staff prepares a draft Statement of Scope
• Commission reviews and approves the Statement of Scope
• Statement of Scope is published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register
• Waiting period
SECOND STEP - HEARING STEP
• Commission staff prepares draft rule
• Once draft is ready, staff prepares a Notice of Hearing and other information regarding the draft rule
• The Commission reviews and approves the draft rule and Notice
• The Notice of Hearing and Proposed Rule are published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register
• A hearing is held and comments taken
For the Wind Siting Rules, at least 2 hearings (one in Monroe County, and one outside
Dane and Monroe Counties, but where developers have proposed wind energy systems)
THIRD STEP - LEGISLATIVE STEP
• Commission staff redrafts rule based on comments
• Commission staff prepares a Report to the Legislature
• The Commission reviews and approves the Final Rules and the Report to the Legislature
• The Rule and the Report to the Legislature are sent to both the Assembly and the Senate
• The Rule is assigned to a Committee in each house
• Committees have 30 days to review the rule
A committee may schedule a hearing or request that the Commission modify the rule
FOURTH STEP - FINAL STEP
• At the conclusion of the legislative rule review period, the Rule is approved
• The Final Rule is sent to Secretary of State
• The Final Rule is published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register
• Generally, the Final Rule becomes effective the first day of the first month following publication PSC REF#:129087
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
RECEIVED: 03/29/10, 3:06:54 PM
DRAFT RULE OUTLINE:
PSC Chapter 128 Draft Compiled Rule Outline Prepared for Wind Siting Council
WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
PSC 128.01 Definitions.
• Large wind energy system
• Small wind energy system
• Other
PSC 128.02 Applicability.
• Applicable to projects on going forward basis, except as noted
• Commission may waive or modify a rule provision in an exceptional situation
PSC 128.03 Siting criteria.
• Setbacks for design and construction of a wind energy system• Compliance with setback provisions measured from the centerline of the turbine tower to the nearest point on the foundation of the building
• Owners of occupied buildings, participating residences or non-participating residences may waive setbacks
• Long term land use planning may not preclude construction of wind turbines
• No height or location limitations near public use airports or heliports stricter than FAA obstruction standards
• No height or location limitations near private medical facility heliports use for air ambulance service stricter than the FAA obstruction standards that apply to public use heliports
• Developer shall consider noise standard in siting decisions
• Developer shall consider shadow flicker impacts in siting decisions
• Developer shall consider radio, television, phone interference in siting decisions and avoid interference to extent practicable
• Developer shall test for stray voltage near project facility prior to construction and after the project is completed; developer to rectify stray voltage problems arising from the construction and operation of the project
• Developer shall work with political subdivisions to minimize individual hardships
PSC 128.04 Development of a wind energy system.
• Developer is required to provide advance notice to landowners near project area and political subdivisions where project is located
• Possible requirement for developer to provide notice to commission
• Developer to consult with DNR regarding natural resources
• Developer to consult with Wisconsin Historical Society regarding historical and archeological resources
• Developer to develop a transportation plan in consultation with DOT and political subdivision
• Political subdivision may require developer to submit a detailed roads plan PSC
• Developer to coordinate with local first responders and air ambulance services regarding emergency evacuation plan
• Political subdivision may require developers to consult with owners of private use airports in the project area
• Consideration of impacts on aerial spraying practices
• Consideration of impacts on existing agricultural or other commercial enterprises
• Compensation for non-participating residences near turbines
• Possible recording requirement for wind leases and easements or a memorandum thereof
• Requirements regarding provisions to be contained in a wind lease or easement
PSC 128.05 Construction and operation.
• Developer/owner may not materially deviate from the approved application without separate approval from the political subdivision
• No advertising material permitted on a wind turbine
• Political subdivision may not impose structure lighting restrictions that would conflict with
FAA specifications
• Developer/owner shall restore the project area after construction is complete
• Developer/owner shall ensure the outside of a turbine is not climbable
• Developer/owner shall ensure access doors are locked
• Developer/owner shall post appropriate warning signage
• Developer/owner shall post 24/7 emergency contact, ownership, and location information
• Political subdivision may create rules regarding blasting
• Developer/owner shall construct, maintain, and operate collector circuit facilities in compliance with National Electrical Safety Code and Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 114
• Developer/owner shall construct, maintain, and operate all other wind project facilities in compliance with National Electrical Code
• Developer/owner shall repair, maintain and replace wind turbines and associated facilities as needed to keep the wind energy system in good repair and operating condition
• Developer/owner shall report to political subdivision regarding operations and maintenance
• Developer/owner shall notify political subdivision and commission of an emergency
• Developer/owner shall establish emergency procedures
• Developer/owner shall operate the project in a manner that meets specified noise limits (dBA) during daytime hours
• Upon complaint by an affected resident, noise limit shall be reduced during nighttime hours for areas related to the complaint
• Methods available to comply with noise limits
• Developer/owner relieved from meeting nighttime noise limit if affected resident agrees to a waiver or settlement
• Noise limits in the event of a steady pure tone (whine, whistle, screech, hum)
• Compliance with noise limits shall be measured or otherwise evaluated at the outside wall of residence
• Developer/owner to conduct pre- and post-construction noise studies
PSC 128.06 Enforcement and mitigation.
• Developer/owner shall maintain a log of all complaints
• Developer/owner shall make copies of this complaint log available to any local monitoring committees
• Developer/owner shall provide a contact person and phone number for complaints
• Developer/owner shall work with landowners to mitigate the effects of shadow flicker
• Requirement to mitigate shadow flicker at eligible residences triggered by complaint regarding shadow flicker
• Developer/owner to allow resident to choose a preferred reasonable mitigation technique
• Developer/owner to consult with affected residents regarding the resident’s preferred reasonable mitigation solution for radio and television interference
• Developer/owner to work with affected cellular providers to provide adequate coverage in the affected area
PSC 128.07 Decommissioning.
• Developer/owner must decommission wind energy system at end of its useful life
• Time periods for decommissioning
• Developer/owner to submit decommissioning and site restoration plan to political subdivision
• Developer/owner shall ensure decommissioned sites are restored
• Developer/owner shall demonstrate financial ability to decommission
PSC 128.08 Political subdivision review of a wind energy system.
• Political subdivision may require developer/owner to obtain approval for expansion of a pre-existing or previously approved wind energy system
• Political subdivision’s approval remains in effect despite a change in ownership of the wind energy system
• Conditions for political subdivision granting approval
• Political subdivision may deny an application if conditions are not met
• Political subdivision shall issue its decision in writing, based on written findings of fact, supported by evidence in the record
• Before an applicant files an application, applicant shall submit to the political subdivision a notice of intent to file
• Political subdivision may charge reasonable application fees or obtain reimbursement for reasonable review expenses
• Political subdivision conflicts of interest must be disclosed
• Notice of application shall be given to property owners in the area
• Application shall be available for public review
• Political subdivision to establish a process for accepting public comments
• Political subdivisions may establish a joint application review process when multiple political subdivisions are involved
PSC Chapter 128 Draft Compiled Rule Outline Prepared for Wind Siting Council
PSC 128.09 Application filing requirements.
• Content requirements for an application to a political subdivision
• For incomplete applications, applicants must provide additional information
• For incomplete applications, the political subdivision may require applicant to resubmit its application after integrating additional information
• Subsequent 45-day completeness review periods will begin after the responses to all completeness items are received
• Political subdivision may request additional information subsequent to determining that an application is complete; applicant required to respond in a timely manner
• Political subdivision may require submission of duplicate copies of the application
PSC 128.10 Commission review.
• Appeal will be treated as application to open a docket
• Appeals must be in writing
• Appealing party must serve all relevant parties with copy of appeal
• Requirements regarding filing the record of the local decision being appealed
• Commission may require additional information to be filed
• Commission may proceed without a hearing, but may set a hearing if Commission believes a hearing is necessary
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
-Developing guiding principles- Developer/owner responsibility
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Callisto, Clean Wisconsin Inc., Dean Baumgartner, Deb Irwin, Forward Wind Energy Center, Gerry Meyer, Invenergy LLC, PSC, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Schryver, state wind farm council, wisconsin wind
|
Comments Off
3/29/10 WHEN'S THE NEXT SITING COUNCIL MEETING? -- ALSO---It's 8 members not 10, we were wrong, and two letters worth reading.
PLEASE REMEMBER----
Notice of Wind Siting Council (WSC) meetings will be posted on the PSC website at least 24 hours in advance.
Click on the Events button or check the siting council docket 1-AC-231 for the latest postings.
This draft schedule of upcoming meetings was distributed at the 3/29/10 WSC Meeting. It is for planning purposes and is subject to change. Locations of future siting council meetings to be announced.
DRAFT SCHEDULE
Thursday April 1, 2010 at 1:30 PM
-Developing guiding principles- Developer/owner responsibility
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin
Wednesday April 7, 2010 at 9:00 AM
-Developing guiding principles- Local and commission process
Friday April 9th 2010 9:00 AM
-Finalize Council's guiding principles.
Friday April 16th, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Review/Comment on first draft of rules-- developer/owner responsibilities
Thursday April 22, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Review/Comment on first draft of rules-- Siting, local and commission process
Thursday, April 29th, 2010- 1:30 (tentative-- meet only if necessary)
-Finalize review/ Comment on first draft of rules
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 9:00 AM
Review/Comment on Published Draft of Rules-- Siting; Local and Commission Process
Monday, May 17th, 2010 at 11:30 am (hold rest of day)
Review/ Comment on Published Draft of Rules-- Siting; Local and Commission Process.
Thursday, May 27th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Review/ Comment on Published Draft of Rules
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 -9:00 AM (hold entire day)
Finalize Comments on Published draft of rules.
Wednesday June 9, 2010 -9:00 AM (Tentative, only if necessary)
Finalize comments on Published Draft of Rules
What’s on the PSC siting council docket today?
Representative Ted Zigmunt writes a letter to the PSC regarding constituents concerns because the majority of members of the siting council are from Madison. Rep Zigmunt was told that ten out of the 15 member council were from Madison.
PSC Chairman Callisto says the number is incorrect. 8 out of the 15 are from Dane County, but the other counties represented are Dodge, Fond du Lac, Green, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Rock and Washington.
Better Plan was glad to have checked the docket because we had it wrong on our last post. We've corrected the errors and urge anyone who finds errors on our website to contact us by clicking here so we may correct them.
For those who are following this story, both Representative Zigmunt’s letter and Chairman Callisto’s reply are well worth reading. Both letters show a level of concern about this issue that is encouraging.
Chairman Calliso’s reply also contains clear information that will be helpful to anyone who wants to follow the entire process, from postings on the WSC docket to attending siting council meetings which are open to the public.
You can read both Zigmunt and Callisto’s letters by going to the PSC website [CLICK HERE]
The docket number to enter is 1-AC-231.
Better Plan attended the first WSC meeting today and very much appreciated the level of access and transparency offered to members of the public.
We'll be posting more on today's the council meeting soon.
3/28/10 Will you be an 'affected entity'? and a little more about the siting council: Required reading for the first wind siting council meeting Monday, March 29,
WHO IS ON THE WIND SITING COUNCIL?
These bios were provided by the BPWI Research Nerd. If there are any errors or inaccuracies, please contact us immediately by CLICKING HERE so we may correct them.
Selected members were announced March 16, 2010. They include by law,
Two wind energy system representatives:
Tom Green, Wind developer, senior project manager, Wind Capitol Group, Dane County.
Wind Capitol Group is developing a project in Columbia County
"But whether the wind farm goes in, [Tom Green] said, will depend on what the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decides, as it sets parameters for wind farms - including setback from neighboring properties - that will apply throughout Wisconsin, and which cannot be made stricter by local authorities.
"You can't have a patchwork of rules throughout the state," Green said...
The rules, when they are adopted, will apply to wind farms such as the one proposed by Wind Capital Group - operations that generate less than 100 megawatts."
SOURCE: Portage Daily Register, January 28, 2010
In April 2009 Wind Capital Group sold the Bent Tree Wind project in Freeborn County, Minnesota to Wisconsin Power and Light Co. (WPL), a subsidiary of Alliant Energy Corporation. Dane County
Bill Rakocy, Wind developer, parter and founding member of Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, LLC, WASHINGTON COUNTY
Emerging Energies is developing the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County. The five hundred foot tall turbines, made by German company, Nordex, will be the largest in the state.
UPDATE: We received an email from a Manitowoc County resident who tells us...
"Bill Rakocy with Emerging Energies also has land signed up in the Mishicot area. This is a 7 turbine project that was stopped in court with the use of the Manitowoc Co. wind ordnance. Manitowoc Co. gave them the permits under the old ordinance, but was reversed in court. Land is still under contract and he will benefit from lesser setbacks that the committee will place in the standards."
We invite Emerging Energies to contact us by CLICKING HERE if this information in inaccurate.
“We’re excited to develop as much wind [power] as we can in Wisconsin,” says partner Bill Rakocy."
“The permitting process is a rather long-term effort,” says Rakocy. “A conditional use permit is good for two years, typically, and it may take you all of that two years to get the balance of the project details put in place. And then there’s production tax credits available from the federal government, and if they expire in the midst of the project, all your work is for naught.”
SOURCE: "Wind Power's Wind Fall" Marketplace Magazine
“For the project, called the Shirley Wind Farm, Nordex will supply cold climate models of the N100s, upgraded to operate in temperatures as low as minus 20° Fahrenheit.
“We looked very carefully at the N80/N90/N100 Nordex turbines and were convinced by their great track record, along with the quality and experience Nordex brings to the market,” said Bill Rakocy, one of three founders of Emerging Energies.
"We selected the N100s because they accomplish two critical project goals – maximizing available land and wind resources by using the largest, tallest turbines available. We’re excited to introduce them in the US and in Wisconsin.”
The project also represents a shift in the US market toward larger turbines with higher efficiencies and yields. In 2008, the average installed turbine was 1.67 megawatts. Nordex built the first 2.5-megawatt turbine in 2000 and has the longest track record for reliability in the multi-megawatt class, with over 1,000 installed worldwide.
One town representative:
Doug Zweizig, P&Z Commissioner, Union Township, Professor Emeritus, School of Library and Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Served as acting Chairman of the Town of Union P&Z commission during the development of a large wind ordinance. Rock County
"When asked about health and safety effects of wind turbines, EcoEnergy (the company proposing to locate wind turbines in our township) as well as our local utility simply have denied that there are any concerns, using statements such as “The noise from wind turbines is about the same as a refrigerator running in the room. “ or “The noise from wind turbines is masked by the sound of the wind blowing.”
These often-repeated statements are demonstrably false and would be laughable if they weren’t so disrespectful of the people suffering from sleep deprivation and other chronic health effects resulting from bad placement of wind turbines in Wisconsin. If they believe what they’re saying, they can’t have listened to their own turbines.
They are counting on the ignorance of landowners, editorial writers, and, frankly, legislators to allow them to make such deceitful claims. (Yet, while denying any adverse effects from placement of wind turbines, EcoEnergy uses the word “mitigation” a lot—betraying their recognition of the need to counteract the effects of wind turbines on humans in their vicinity.)"
SOURCE: Submitted testimony, public hearing before the Senate and Assembly Energy Committee regarding turbine siting reform, May 12, 2009
One county representative:
Lloyd Lueschow, Green County Board Supervisor, District 28, Village of New Glarus trustee, Green County
Former Director, Integrated Science Services, Wisconsin DNR,
Two energy industry representatives:
Andy Hesselbach, Wind project manager, We Energies, managed Blue Sky/Green Field project in Fond du Lac County, project manager for recently approved Glacier Hills project in Columbia county. BS in Industrial Engineering, MBA.
"Hesselbach said he's concerned about proposals to move turbines farther from people's homes, given the need for Wisconsin to add more renewable power to comply with the state's renewable portfolio standard.
If "the sound or setback standards are modified in any material way, it is unlikely that this project will be developed, and moreover that any large-scale wind project will be built by any entity in the future in the state of Wisconsin," Hesselbach said. "The only option to utilize wind generation would be to develop projects in other states."
"Winds of Change are Blowing" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 24th 2009
CLICK on the image below to watch Andy Hesselbach in a news segment about Fond du Lac County wind projects.
Dan Ebert, WPPI Energy; Vice President of Policy and External Affairs, Former Chairman of Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 2005-2008, former executive assistant to PSC Chair Bernie Bridge. Transition Personnel Director for Governor Doyle 2002.
Dan Ebert, who chaired the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin for three years between 2005 and 2008, oversees the legislative and regulatory affairs, corporate communicaton and policy development functions for WPPI which serves 49 municipalities and one electric cooperative in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Upper Michigan.
Ebert was appointed to the chairmanship of the PSC in 2005 by Governor Doyle, having been executive assistant at the commission. Current PSC chairman, Eric Callisto, was appointed in 2008 after Ebert vacated his seat. Prior to being a appointed, Callisto had also been executive assistant at the PSC.
Source: New Glarus Utilities, newglarusutilities.com February 2009
Two environmental group representatives:
Michael Vickerman , Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin, registered lobbyist. RENEW'S "Terawatt Sponsors: include Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company (ATC), Madison Gas & Electric, WE Energies. RENEW also recieves money from Wind developers EcoEnergy, enXco, Horizon Wind Energy, Invenergy LLC, Emerging Energies LLC [SOURCE]
“You can’t stop a project in Wisconsin based on the appearance of these turbines,” [Vickerman] says, “so over the past seven years the opposition has refined its arguments and framed them in the realm of protecting public health and safety.
Here, as far as I’m concerned, is where they reveal their antiwind bias. They allege that they can’t sleep, they suffer from nausea—they express their discomfort in the most hysterical terms, and I think they basically work themselves into a very visceral hatred for wind.
I don’t even know if they have a philosophical objection to wind. They’re maybe congenitally unhappy people and they needed to project their fears and anxieties and resentments onto something new that comes into the neighborhood and disrupts things.”
Ryan Schryver , Global Warming Specialist, Organizer, Advocate: Clean Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County
Click on the image below to hear Ryan Schryver speak about global warming, weather changes in Wisconsin, and the over-use of dirty coal in our state.
Two realtor representatives:
George Krause Jr. Real estate broker: Choice Residential LLC, Manitowoc County. Lifelong resident of the Port Cities area in Manitowoc County, Realtor in Manitowoc area since 1989, he was voted Realtor of the Year by the Manitowoc County Board of REALTORS® Inc. in 2009
Tom Meyer, Realtor, Broker, Restaino & Associates, Middleton, Dane County
Tom Meyer has been a realtor since 1989 and a broker since 1993. P resently
Managing Broker for the Middleton office of Restaino & Associates
Click on the image below to watch Tom Meyer speak about real estate issues or CLICK HERE to watch it at its source
Two landowners living adjacent to or in the vicinity of a wind energy system:
Dwight Sattler Landowner, retired diary farmer, Malone, We Energies Blue Sky/Green Field project Fond du Lac County
Click on the image below to watch a video of Dwight Sattler
Larry Wunsch, Landowner, fire-fighter, Brownsville, Invenergy Forward Energy wind project, Fond du Lac County
Click on the image below to watch a video of Larry Wunsch
"I have a wind turbine located 1100’ from my home and I can almost see all 86 turbines in the project from my back yard. There will be a lot of testimony today stating that there are no ill effects coming from wind turbines. I am here today to tell you that those statements are nothing but lies.
When the PSC permitted project first came to our Town, we had a lot of questions and concerns. We asked about noise and were told that they make very little noise. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many days where the turbine next to me sounds like a jet engine idling on a taxi-way. There have been many nights where I laid awake from noise generated from these wind turbines.
Think about it. This is a huge, high torque generating device fastened to a 300 foot hollow steel tube mounted to an immense concrete foundation, and you are telling me that this device will not make noise. I am not a sound engineer so I can’t ague sound decibel levels. All I can say is that there are times that these turbines are so noisy that they almost drive me out of my home."
SOURCE: Public testimony given at a public hearing before the Senate and Assembly Energy Committee regarding turbine siting reform, May 12, 2009
Click on the image below to watch a video created by Larry Wunsh and submitted as part of his testimony
Two public members:
David Gilles, attorney specializing in energy regulatory law, shareholder, Godfrey & Kahn Attorneys at Law, former general counsel to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 2003-2007, former Assistant Attorney General during Jim Doyle's term as Attorney General, Madison, Dane County.
Jennifer Heinzen, Wind Energy Technology Instructor, Lakeshore Technical College, President of RENEW Wisconsin, Manitowoc County
Manitowoc County Wind Energy Systems Advisory Committee from 2005-2006
"I have spent many hours on and underneath wind turbines of all sizes, and have never felt sick. Nor have any of the systems’ owners/hosts that I’ve met. What makes me sick is the profound hatred these near-sided, selfish, wind opponents have towards change and progress."
Source: Letter from Heinzen to the Editor of Isthmus, Posted on RENEW Website September 29, 2009
"Please believe our intent is in no way to belittle local communities or imply that anyone is “dumb,” as you stated in the article. But when irrational and unfounded fears are propagated and allowed to infest the minds of our local decision-makers, the madness must be stopped. I honestly don’t understand why the WINDCOWS and their allies hate wind power… Money? Aesthetics? I quit trying to rationalize it long ago because it really doesn’t matter.
State Statute 66.0401 outlines local governments’ authority to restrict wind and solar energy systems. Those opposed to a project must prove legitimate health and safety concerns. That’s hard to do, considering no civilian has ever been physically harmed by a wind turbine. Therefore, anecdotal tales of “wind turbine syndrome” run rampant on anti-wind websites, but the “evidence” is nothing more than a conglomeration of exaggerations, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications.
One University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems:
Jevon McFadden,MD, MPH Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin, School of Medicine & Public Health
2009 Senior Assistant Resident and graduate of Johns Hopkins Bayview Internal Medicine Residency Program; Epidemiology Intelligence Service, 2009 Lieutenant, U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, 1998 Andrews University Student Missionary to Micronisian Island of Yap
The PSC appoints the members for three−year terms.
The PSC is required to obtain the advice of the council in promulgating rules under the substitute amendment. In addition, the council must survey peer−reviewed scientific research on the health impacts of wind energy as well as national and state regulatory developments regarding the siting of wind energy systems, and submit a report to the legislature every five years describing the research and developments and recommending legislation based on the research and developments.
GRIM NEWS ABOUT BATS, BIRDS and TURBINES
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
BAD NEWS ABOUT WISCONSIN BATS, BIRDS and TURBINES
The high fatality numbers reported in the post construction bird and bat mortality study for Blue Sky/Green Field project in Fond du Lac county have surprised everyone who has seen them.
The report shows that the number of kills in the We Energies project are the highest ever recorded in the Midwest, by as much as ten times the national average.
As far as we can tell, there is no one on the council who has expertise specific to these wildlife and habitat concerns. If you are as disturbed by this as we are, why not contact the PSC and let them know you'd feel better if there was someone on the council who could represent our state's birds and bats and habitat.
CLICK HERE to download the WEPCO final bird and bat mortality study for Blue Sky/Green Field
It is also available on Blue Sky/Green Field docket on the the PSC website
Click on the image below to watch a video about the turbines alongside the Horicon Marsh in Fond du Lac County. There is talk of putting turbines even closer to the marsh during Phase Two of hte project.
UPDATE: We have been told that siting council member and Green County supervisor Lloyd Lueschow is a retired biologist and was formerly employed by Wisconsin DNR.
Agenda for Monday's meeting:
1) Greetings:
Overview of process and expectations, time line
Introduction of Commission staff working with Council
Open meeting requirements
Administration of Oath
2) Self-introductions by members of Wind Siting Council
3) Election of officers: Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary
4) Administrative:
Reimbursement of expenses
Schedule of Future Meetings
Designated substitutes
Instructions regarding use/enrolling in Electronic Regulatory Filing System (ERF)
Overview of rule-making process and additional Act 40 requirements
5) Review of Draft Rules Outline/topics
Explain how developed
Topics/items that are unclear
Topics/items not in outline which council recommends for inclusion
6) Discussion of how to proceed with future work
7) Next steps/Adjourn
This meeting is open to the public.
Background:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN STATEMENT OF SCOPE
Wind Siting Rules
SOURCE: PSC Docket 1-AC-231
A. Objective of the Rule:
2009 Wisconsin Act 40 (Act 40) establishes statewide criteria for the installation or use of a wind energy system with a nominal operating capacity of less than 100 megawatts, and helps ensure consistent local procedures for such systems.
Act 40 requires the Commission to promulgate a variety of rules that specify the conditions a city, village, town, or county (political subdivision) may impose on such a system. If a political subdivision chooses to regulate such systems, its ordinances may not be more restrictive than the Commission’s rules.
B. Existing Relevant Policies, New Policies Proposed, and Analysis of Alternatives:
Act 40 identifies several areas that these rules must cover and several areas that they may cover.
It requires that the rules include provisions dealing with the decommissioning of wind energy systems, including restoration of the site, and setback requirements that reasonably protect against health effects that are associated with wind energy systems.
Act 40 also requires rules that specify the information and documentation to be provided in an application for approval, the procedure to be followed by a political subdivision in reviewing the application, the information and documentation to be kept in a political subdivision’s record of its decision, as well as the requirements and procedures for enforcing restrictions included in the rule.
The rules must also require the owner of a wind energy system with a nominal operating capacity of at least one megawatt to maintain proof of financial responsibility ensuring the availability of funds for decommissioning the system.
The rules may also include provisions dealing with issues such as visual appearance, electrical connections to the power grid, interference with radio, telephone or television signals, maximum audible sound levels, and lighting.
Currently, an electric generating facility with a nominal operating capacity of 100 megawatts or more may not be constructed unless the Commission grants a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
Act 40 requires the Commission to consider the restrictions specified in these rules when determining whether to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The rules may also require the Commission to consider the conditions specified in these rules when
determining whether to grant a public utility a certificate of authority for a wind farm smaller than 100 megawatts.
Act 40 also creates a 15-person Wind Siting Council that will, among other things, advise the Commission in the drafting of these rules.
C. Summary and Comparison of Federal Regulation in This Area:
There are a number of federal laws that interact with the issues in this rulemaking, although the Commission is not aware of any that deal with the substance of them; that is, the minimum requirements that a political subdivision may impose.
A few of the federal laws that may inter-relate include the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4321 et. seq., the Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1531–1544, and 14 CFR Pt. 77, which requires a Federal Aviation Administration airspace study before constructing certain types of projects.
D. Statutory Authority:
This rule is authorized under ss. 196.02 (1) and (3), 227.11 and newly-created s. 196.378 (4g), Stats.
E. Time Estimates for Rule Development:
The Commission estimates that approximately 800 hours of Commission staff time will be required in this rulemaking.
F. Entities That May Be Affected:
Affected entities include cities; villages; towns; counties; persons and entities that own, want to construct, or want to host wind energy systems; and landowners near such proposed wind energy systems.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Dan Ebert, David Gilles, Doug Zweizig, Dwight Sattler, Jennifer Heinzen, Larry Wunsch, Michael Vickerman, wind energy wisconsin, wind farm winsconsin, wind noise, wind power wisconsin, wind shadow flicker
|
Comments Off
3/26/10 DOUBLE FEATURE: We Energies picks builders for Glacier Hills AND First Open Meeting of Wind Siting Council Monday, March 29, 2010 AND today's homework assignment
Butler Ridge Wind Farm in Dodge County
We Energies picks builders for Glacier Hills
SOURCE: The Daily Reporter
March 25, 2010
We Energies has selected The Boldt Co., Appleton; Michels Corp., Brownsville; and Edgerton Contractors Inc., Oak Creek, to build the Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County. (Photo by Joe Yovino)
We Energies has selected three Wisconsin contractors to build the Glacier Hills Wind Park.
The three contractors are The Boldt Co., Appleton; Michels Corp., Brownsville; and Edgerton Contractors Inc., Oak Creek. The project to build a wind farm in Columbia County is scheduled to begin in May or June.
VISIT THE DAILY REPORTER’S PROJECT PROFILE PAGE ON THE GLACIER HILLS WIND PARK <http://dailyreporter.com/glacier-hills-wind-park/>
The project’s construction budget will be between $335 million and $413.5 million, depending on which type of turbines is used and the number of turbines in the farm, said We Energies spokesman Brian Manthey.
In April, the utility will nail down the number of turbines and their locations, he said.
SECOND FEATURE
SOURCE: Public Service Commission
Docket # 1-AC-231
MEETING NOTICE
Wind Siting Council 1-AC-231
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Pecatonica River Conference Room (Lower Floor)
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin
Monday, March 29, 2010, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Agenda
1) Greetings:
Overview of process and expectations, time line
Introduction of Commission staff working with Council
Open meeting requirements
Administration of Oath
2) Self-introductions by members of Wind Siting Council
3) Election of officers: Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary
4) Administrative:
Reimbursement of expenses
Schedule of Future Meetings
Designated substitutes
Instructions regarding use/enrolling in Electronic Regulatory Filing System (ERF)
Overview of rule-making process and additional Act 40 requirements
5) Review of Draft Rules Outline/topics
Explain how developed
Topics/items that are unclear
Topics/items not in outline which council recommends for inclusion
6) Discussion of how to proceed with future work
7) Next steps/Adjourn
This meeting is open to the public.
If you have any questions or need special accommodations, please contact Deborah Erwin at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin by telephone at (608) 266-3905 or via e-mail at deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
Do Your Homework:
Visit the PSC docket for the siting council frequently to see the latest posts, and add comments of your own for PSC staff members to read and consider as they prepare summaries for the Commissioners.
If you want to be sure your comments are read by the commissioners themselves you'll have post your comments again during the later hearing phase so they will be considered testimony.
Visit the siting council docket by CLICKING HERE to get to the PSC website In the box that says "Link Directly to a Case", type in this docket number 1-AC-231
REQUIRED READING:
For those who are following the creation of the PSC siting guidelines, we'll be posting a series of documents and news stories for review.
Officials cover up wind farm noise report
The guidance from consultants indicated that the sound level permitted from spinning blades and gearboxes had been set so high - 43 decibels - that local people could be disturbed whenever the wind blew hard. The noise was also thought likely to disrupt sleep.
The report said the best way to protect locals was to cut the maximum permitted noise to 38 decibels, or 33 decibels if the machines created discernible "beating" noises as they spun.
It has now emerged that officials removed the warnings from the draft report in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), the consultants. The final version made no mention of them.
It means that hundreds of turbines at wind farms in Britain have been allowed to generate much higher levels of noise, sparking protests from people living near them.
Among those affected is Jane Davis, 53, a retired National Health Service manager, who has had to abandon her home because of the noise.
It lies half a mile from the Deeping St Nicholas wind farm in south Lincolnshire whose eight turbines began operating in 2006.
"Our problems started three days after the turbines went up and they've carried on ever since. It's like having helicopters going over the top of you at times - on a bad night it's like three or four helicopters circling around," she said.
"We abandoned our home. We rent a house about five miles away - this is our fourth Christmas out of our own home. We couldn't sleep. It is torture - my GP describes it as torture. Three hours of sleep a night is torture."
The HMP report was commissioned by the business department whose responsibilities for wind power have since been taken over by Ed Miliband's Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
The decision to stick with existing noise limits became official guidance for local authorities ruling on planning applications from wind farm developers.
It has also been used by ministers and officials to support the view that there was no need to revise official wind farm noise guidelines and that erecting turbines near homes posed no threat to people's health and wellbeing.
In 2007 Mike Hulme of the Den Brook Judicial Review Group, a band of residents opposing a wind turbine development close to their houses in Devon, submitted a Freedom of Information request asking to see all draft versions of the study.
Officials refused the request, claiming it was not in the public interest for them to be released. Hulme appealed to the information commissioner's office, which has ordered Miliband's department to release the documents. The drafts show the HMP originally recommended that the night-time wind turbine noise limit should be reduced from 43 decibels to 38, or 33 if they made any kind of swishing or beating noise - known as "aerodynamic modulation".
The HMP researchers had based their recommendations on evidence. They took noise measurements at houses close to three wind farms: Askam in Cumbria, Bears Down in Cornwall and Blaen Bowi in Carmarthenshire.
They found that the swish-swish signature noise of turbines was significantly greater around most wind farms than had been foreseen by the authors of the existing government guidelines, which date from 1996. They also found that the beating sound is particularly disruptive at night, when other background noise levels are lower, as it can penetrate walls.
In their draft report the HMP researchers recommended that "Consideration be given to a revision of the night-time absolute noise criterion", noting that this would fit with World Health Organisation recommendations on sleep disturbance.
However, an anonymous government official then inserted remarks attacking this idea because it would impede wind farm development. He, or she, wrote: "What will the impact of this be? Are we saying that this is the situation for all wind farms ... I think we need a sense of the scale of this and the impact."
The final report removed any suggestion of cutting the noise limits or adding any further penalty if turbines generated a beating noise - and recommended local authorities to stick to the 1996 guidelines.
Hulme said: "This demonstrates the conflict of interests in DECC, because it has the responsibility for promoting wind farm development while also having responsibility for the wind farm noise guidance policy ... meant to protect local residents."
Ron Williams, 74, a retired lecturer, lives half a mile from the Wharrels Hill wind farm in Cumbria. He has been forced to use sleeping pills since its eight turbines began operating in 2007.
"The noise we get is the gentle swish swish swish, non-stop, incessant, all night," he said. "It's like a Chinese torture. In winter, when the sun is low in the sky, it goes down behind the turbines and causes flickering shadows coming into the room.
"It's like somebody shining car headlights at your window ... on and off, on and off. It affects us all. It's terrible. Absolutely horrible."
Lynn Hancock, 45, runs a garden maintenance business. She has suffered disruption since 2007 when the 12-turbine Red Tile wind farm began operating several hundred yards from her Cambridgeshire home.
"Imagine a seven-ton lorry left running on the drive all night and that's what it's like," she said. "People describe it as like an aeroplane or a helicopter or a train that never arrives. It's like it's coming but it never gets here."
Such problems are likely to increase. Britain has 253 land-based wind farms generating 3.5 gigawatts, but this is expected to double or even triple by 2020 to help to meet targets for cutting CO2 emissions.
Want more? CLICK HERE to read Today's 'Wind Turbines in the News'
OR on the links below to read the stories at their source
3/25/10 Ice, big winds hobble wind farm
SOURCE: Nova Scotia News- The Chronicle Herald
"Extreme winds, along with cold temperatures and a buildup of ice, crashed three test towers and halted power production at RMSenergy’s wind farm in Pictou County, said company president Reuben Burge in an interview in Halifax on Wednesday.
The heavy ice conditions stopped the blades from turning, resulting in a 20 per cent loss of production in January and February, he said.
Disease and wind turbines menace bat populations
SOURCE: Orangeville Citizen, Ontario
" A University of Calgary bat mortality study, conducted between 2006 and 2008, determined that the vast majority of bats found dead below turbines near Pincher Creek, Alberta, suffered severe injuries to their respiratory systems consistent with a sudden drop in air pressure – called barotrauma – that occurred when the animals got close to turbine blades.
The study showed that 90 per cent of the bats examined after death showed signs of internal hemorrhaging consistent with barotraumas, while only about half of the bats showed any evidence of direct contact with the blades."
CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY
The BPRC Research Nerd
in We Energies wind, glacier hills wind wisconsin, psc siting council, wind farm noise, wind farm wisconsin, wind health effects, wind power wisconsin, wind setback, wind shadow flicker, wind siting reform wisconsin
|
Comments Off